Soft Severed Deep Nuts With Action

[Acid_Knight 2]

Thats not true in terms of bluffing, and information. which are 2 very big components to NL.

Thanks. I never knew this. Can you give me a little more of a description of what this "bluffing" concept is?

[TB17 0]

Thats not true in terms of bluffing, and information. which are 2 very big components to NL. Your excuse for 4 betting the flop is along the lines of, if he 3 bets, he has air or has something. Thats a pretty vague description and doesnt sell the idea of 4 betting very well.we get his chips when he has something, or he folds when he has air.what benefits come from a call, and turn check?If he has a hand, it doesnt matter. he bets the turn and we raise and money gets in the pot similar to the flop.Upside to this play, If he has air and we appear weak, we might just get him to make a big foolish bluff since he is a LAG.** There is some other considerations about a poor turn card. But then its a question of what do you believe to be a bigger factor, the odds of a K or Q peeling on the turn and potentially killing some action, or him having a hand not worthy of stacking off on the flop?Is this what you consider yourself when you play poker?Also, another note.. this month issue of bluff has a great article about EV in it, many of you should read it since I strongly believe some people have a skewed opinion of how to apply it to poker hands in NL

Any A-T is not a good card for us. The 3 bet has all the information that we need. Are we stacking off when the board pairs? If you can get away from it then I can see calling. Well, no I still don't.K or Q kills our action and we basically chop if any more money goes in unless we're being freerolled.A-J-T we get put into a pretty gross spot because we're either drawing dead already or at best having to fade 9 outs if he has AK/AQ, OR it can also be an action killer if he has AT/JT.If he DOES have AQ/AK, and we call on the flop, how do we guarantee that we get our money in even if a blank falls? You think one pair is gonna fire another shell? What does fire another shell? The only benefit is that we POSSIBLY get more value out of a bluff. And that's not guaranteed at all.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Any A-T is not a good card for us. The 3 bet has all the information that we need. Are we stacking off when the board pairs? If you can get away from it then I can see calling. Well, no I still don't.

calling or pushing doesnt change the outcome of the cards. If we're prepared to stack off on the flop, why should we change on the turn?he is a lag, he has a large range and could be doing this lots of hands that dont fill up if the board pairsthe bottom line is that villain is LAG, has been there a while.. probably breaking down, and now made a type of min raise 3 bet on a rainbowflop.I have trouble believing this is a Big hand from villain.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Thanks. I never knew this. Can you give me a little more of a description of what this "bluffing" concept is?

sklansky's NL holdem book is something you should read

[Temporary Nuts 1]

Thats not true in terms of bluffing, and information. which are 2 very big components to NL. Your excuse for 4 betting the flop is along the lines of, if he 3 bets, he has air or has something. Thats a pretty vague description and doesnt sell the idea of 4 betting very well.we get his chips when he has something, or he folds when he has air.what benefits come from a call, and turn check?If he has a hand, it doesnt matter. he bets the turn and we raise and money gets in the pot similar to the flop.Upside to this play, If he has air and we appear weak, we might just get him to make a big foolish bluff since he is a LAG.

Ok, so I'm *not* crazy... or at least the only one who thinks this.I agree he is either really strong or absolutely nothing. If he's really strong, we've got 2 betting rounds left and our chips are going in this pot baring a turn check through and some really weird runner runner combination... I think he shows up with something he'll lay down to more aggression more often than that happens.If he has air we give him the opportunity to stab at it by calling... which is really the only way to get more value from air since the next bet/raise is the one that commits the person to the pot... if we raise we're making air go away.As far as not slowplaying and "letting opponents" catch up:

calling or pushing doesnt change the outcome of the cards. If we're prepared to stack off on the flop, why should we change on the turn?

If you take this line and a broadway card falls before you shove, get over it you're shoving anyway.

is where I'm coming from as well.Slow playing is lame... but I hardly consider smooth calling a 3-bet to be slow playing.

[Acid_Knight 2]

calling or pushing doesnt change the outcome of the cards. If we're prepared to stack off on the flop, why should we change on the turn?he is a lag, he has a large range and could be doing this lots of hands that dont fill up if the board pairsthe bottom line is that villain is LAG, has been there a while.. probably breaking down, and now made a type of min raise 3 bet on a rainbowflop.I have trouble believing this is a Big hand from villain.

1. We're not trying to change the outcome of the cards. If we get our money in on the flop when he has AK or JJ or whatever and get outdrawn, we should be happy that he put money in as a big underdog. If the turn is a Q (when he has AK) or the board pairs and the money goes in, WE are making a mistake because we let him catch up before stacking off. It's a pretty simple concept.2. Even LAG players make big hands. How on earth do you have trouble believing this is a big hand? Did you read the OP? We raised and he minraised us preflop. The flop is 3 broadway cards and we checkraised him and he 3-bet us. Rainbow board, big deal, it's still SUPER coordinated with 3 big cards out there. You're telling me that this guy has 78s or some other random piece of crap hand here often enough, AND will continue bluffing despite our obvious interest in the pot, often enough that we should flat call his flop bet and then check to him on the turn so that he can keep bluffing?

[Royal_Tour 0]

1. We're not trying to change the outcome of the cards. If we get our money in on the flop when he has AK or JJ or whatever and get outdrawn, we should be happy that he put money in as a big underdog. If the turn is a Q (when he has AK) or the board pairs and the money goes in, WE are making a mistake because we let him catch up before stacking off. It's a pretty simple concept.2. Even LAG players make big hands. How on earth do you have trouble believing this is a big hand? Did you read the OP? We raised and he minraised us preflop. The flop is 3 broadway cards and we checkraised him and he 3-bet us. Rainbow board, big deal, it's still SUPER coordinated with 3 big cards out there. You're telling me that this guy has 78s or some other random piece of crap hand here often enough, AND will continue bluffing despite our obvious interest in the pot, often enough that we should flat call his flop bet and then check to him on the turn so that he can keep bluffing?

I dont agree with this at all. 1 - I think this idea is too text book in the sense that "always get your money in good, limit your mistakes" can be applied to any hands at any time. But to say its a mistake for us to run a trap play vs a LAG who could potentially 3bet with air... meh I dont feel it is.2 - My read is what i've been told. villain is LAG, and geting sloppy. do u think this is AA or JJ all the time here. It could very well be AK, maybe even a stubborn KK who doesnt believe we have an Ace

[Acid_Knight 2]

If he DOES have AQ/AK, and we call on the flop, how do we guarantee that we get our money in even if a blank falls? You think one pair is gonna fire another shell? What does fire another shell? The only benefit is that we POSSIBLY get more value out of a bluff. And that's not guaranteed at all.

I think that the times that we can get more $$ out of AK/AQ on this flop becuase he thinks we might have AJ/AT/JT and he'll have a ton of outs will outweigh the few times that he's bluffing here and would fire more shells at the pot. If he does have one of these hands, he'd for sure call a small 4-bet to see the next card. Then the pot size will be big enough in relation to the stacks to get the rest of the money in. If he's got AK/AQ and we call, I bet he checks back the turn like 90% of the time becuase he can't really beat anything and if he knows anything about poker, he'll figure that out.Think about it. What is our range once we call his 3-bet. The weakest hand we probably ever show up with there is AQ and more often than not we have 2 pair or a bigger made hand already. I don't see how he's gonna keep bluffing when we've put so much money in and our range is so strong and so narrow.

[Acid_Knight 2]

1 - I think this idea is too text book in the sense that "always get your money in good, limit your mistakes" can be applied to any hands at any time. But to say its a mistake for us to run a trap play vs a LAG who could potentially 3bet with air... meh I dont feel it is.

Too textbook? You mean where the book says that getting your money in when you're ahead is good and getting it in drawing dead is bad? WTF are you talking about?

[Royal_Tour 0]

Too textbook? You mean where the book says that getting your money in when you're ahead is good and getting it in drawing dead is bad? WTF are you talking about?

If you dont understand the point i was making, I cant help youhere try watching this old High stakes hand vs too LAG players. everyone feel free to watchNotice the line DN takes with a monster. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojeRwWIdQBM

[Temporary Nuts 1]

If you dont understand the point i was making, I cant help youhere try watching this old High stakes hand vs too LAG players. everyone feel free to watchhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojeRwWIdQBM

DN what a n00bHow are he not to know his full house no good?

[Royal_Tour 0]

DN what a n00bHow are he not to know his full house no good?

he needs to follow text book i guess. If he got his money in on the flop and then gets outdrawn, maybe he sleeps better? I dunno

[fdsafdsa 0]

If you dont understand the point i was making, I cant help youhere try watching this old High stakes hand vs too LAG players. everyone feel free to watchNotice the line DN takes with a monster. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojeRwWIdQBM

Someone, I think playing against Gus Hansen might be a bit different than playing against a 100NL loose-aggressive donk, there is no need to get tricky here.

[Acid_Knight 2]

If you dont understand the point i was making, I cant help you

The ONLY point that I see you making in this whole thread is that the way to get more money from him when he's bluffing is to flat call the flop 3 bet and let him bluff the turn. Wow, novel idea. I don't know how nobody thought of this. Or maybe people thought of this, weighed it against all of the other action in the hand and figured that the chances that he was bluffing were small compared to the chances that he had actually flopped a large hand here because of how many aggressive actions he has taken.This seems to be your favorite line to take with your big hands because I've seen it in like probably 2 or 3 other hands you've posted.Can you give me a range of hands that we:1. Raise with preflop2. Call a preflop reraise (yeah, it's a minraise, so it's probably the same range as #1)3. Checkraise an AJT flop with4. CALL a 3-bet on the AJT flop from the preflop reraiser OOP.How many hands can we have there? How many hands can he expect to get us to fold after calling the flop there?

[Acid_Knight 2]

Someone, I think playing against Gus Hansen might be a bit different than playing against a 100NL loose-aggressive donk, there is no need to get tricky here.

I figured someone else would point out that the caliber of play is slightly different at 100NL compared to 300/600NL.We're not Daniel Negreanu. The villain is not Gus Hansen. This isn't High Stakes Poker.Also, DN is IN POSITION in this hand. Do you realize how much that changes?

[Royal_Tour 0]

This seems to be your favorite line to take with your big hands because I've seen it in like probably 2 or 3 other hands you've posted.

I take this line in certain situations. Sometimes it probably didnt matter if I 3bet shovel, or 4 bet shovel, or flat call and trap.But Ive experienced really shittty situations where my aggression is too much, and they fold hands that they could be investing more money on a later street with.Or I've been in spots where i cut off their line to bluff me, by being aggressive. I'm not saying that there is 1 correct, and 1 incorrect. although it sounds like you are implying there is.This villain isnt folding AA,JJ,10,10 or AJ. he might even get al his money in with A,10. So we're essentially limited his range to this exact hands. and only get paid off by these hands.an outcome that wont change on the turn. If he is as LAG as we say, he still ships with a set on a 4 card straight board. but does he ship with TOP pair on the flop? does he ship with AK AQ, KK,QQ J,10, 8,9 Q,9, A,x??

[Royal_Tour 0]

I figured someone else would point out that the caliber of play is slightly different at 100NL compared to 300/600NL.We're not Daniel Negreanu. The villain is not Gus Hansen. This isn't High Stakes Poker.Also, DN is IN POSITION in this hand. Do you realize how much that changes?

It can go both ways. if villain had a shippable hand like AA, or JJ. would he 3 bet or flat call?

[Royal_Tour 0]

How many hands can we have there? How many hands can he expect to get us to fold after calling the flop there?

If we're villain:its not a question of, how many hands can we get to fold its, How strong does hero appear, was his c/r just an attempt to take this, and now his flat call is weak with a desperate attempt to improve on the turn.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I take this line in certain situations. Sometimes it probably didnt matter if I 3bet shovel, or 4 bet shovel, or flat call and trap.But Ive experienced really shittty situations where my aggression is too much, and they fold hands that they could be investing more money on a later street with.Or I've been in spots where i cut off their line to bluff me, by being aggressive. I'm not saying that there is 1 correct, and 1 incorrect. although it sounds like you are implying there is.This villain isnt folding AA,JJ,10,10 or AJ. he might even get al his money in with A,10. So we're essentially limited his range to this exact hands. and only get paid off by these hands.an outcome that wont change on the turn. If he is as LAG as we say, he still ships with a set on a 4 card straight board. but does he ship with TOP pair on the flop? does he ship with AK AQ, KK,QQ J,10, 8,9 Q,9, A,x??

I'm saying that against his range of hands, the best move is to just get the money in here becuase it's unlikely he's bluffing. Also, I think saying that he's stupid enough to ship a set on a 4 card straight board (obv if a K or Q peels on the turn) but he'll fold top pair on the flop with AK/AQ are kind of contradicting statements.

[Acid_Knight 2]

It can go both ways. if villain had a shippable hand like AA, or JJ. would he 3 bet or flat call?

How does being in position go both ways?If I'm the villain with AA, I'm 3 betting the flop 110% of the time. Look at the stacks. I want the money in there and the pot isn't big enough to get it in there.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I'm saying that against his range of hands, the best move is to just get the money in here becuase it's unlikely he's bluffing. Also, I think saying that he's stupid enough to ship a set on a 4 card straight board (obv if a K or Q peels on the turn) but he'll fold top pair on the flop with AK/AQ are kind of contradicting statements.

Meh, 10 outs for the winner looks more appealing than3 outs for top 2.

[Royal_Tour 0]

How does being in position go both ways?If I'm the villain with AA, I'm 3 betting the flop 110% of the time. Look at the stacks. I want the money in there and the pot isn't big enough to get it in there.

No, i meant, which player we use as DN. Meaning if villain was DN and Cwik was Hansen. Would are villain 3bet a monster or would he flat call from postion?

[Acid_Knight 2]

No, i meant, which player we use as DN. Meaning if villain was DN and Cwik was Hansen. Would are villain 3bet a monster or would he flat call from postion?

You can't compare these hands. You just can't. There is history between DN and Gus. There are other factors that are deeper than the cards and some really vague reads of the player. http://www.cardplayer.com/author/article/all/36/4778DN plays the way he does in the hand because it's unlikely that he'd have a hand as strong as he does on that board, and he knows that Gus would know that. There is psychology bred from familiarity of the two players. That doesn't exist often at all at 100NL.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Meh, 10 outs for the winner looks more appealing than3 outs for top 2.

Depending on our hand, he could have the following outsIf we have JT: 10 outsIf we have AT: 10 outsIf we have AJ: 7 outs

[David_Nicoson 1]

It is my experience that the Broadway flop makes lots of people lose their minds and play level 0 poker. It hits everything. People over-count their outs by considering their gut-shot draw to go with their pair, even though the pair is obviously no good and, as in this case, a gut-shot draw is to a split. A typical reaction (and I'm not saying that this is entirely wrong), is to ship all those chips in there and not try to discern which outs are good and which are not, particularly from out of position. If he makes a brilliant play here and lays down bottom set, there's still a clear upside to us in that he gives up his equity in the pot.The hands we really don't want to fold are AK and AQ. And it's not clear to me that the villain will be more willing to commit with those hands after a brick turn than on the flop.